An act of civil war

Submitted by Greg (United States), Aug 6, 2011 at 14:43

In a recent interview a Norwegian ambassador to Israel, though acknowledging similarities underscored the differences between the terrorist act in Norway and terrorist acts in Israel. He finds terrorism in Norway is inexcusable while in Israel justified. Arabs in Israel have legitimate claims according to him unlike Behring Breivik.

The deepest irony is that if approached objectively the exact opposite is true. If we stay away from what we think is right or wrong and concentrate on what classifies a violent act as terrorism, we will realise that the main distinction is the care taken to select victims.
In case of Muslim terrorists in Israel the victims are picked entirely at random. And this is very important as the goal is by killing them to threaten - to terrorise the rest of the population. The randomness of the selection is intentional, so that anyone can think "It might happen to me".

From this point of view the "imprecise projectiles" (as Hamas apologists call them) that being launched into southern Israel almost daily is terrorism clear ans simple and precise response by Israelis is not, as they call it, "state terrorism"

Behring Breivik was very particular about his targets. His targets were his political opponents. This is an act of civil war, no different than the one conducted by the rebels in Libya with the help from NATO. Which begs the question by the way: why Libya? Are we going to fix every country that way now. Half of the world is run by the likes of Muammar Gaddafi.

But back to Behring Breivik. He is a Norwegian rebel without NATO help. I guess presence of Al-Qaeda among rebels plays an important role when NATO decides who to help.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".